Re: What is it about aquatics?

I just don't find aquatics very interesting, preferring stronger, richer, more complex scents which hold my interest. Yes, by the standards of this forum I qualify as a genuine old man

My typical response to an aquatic is that when I first encounter someone wearing one I think that sure smells nice. But just a few minutes later I'm already bored with it and wish I didn't have to smell it anymore. It's not that I find aquatics unpleasant, but rather boring.

I don't hate aquatics, and I even have a few in my wardrobe. But overall I'd usually prefer to wear something more interesting. Why wear something that bores me?

I liken the aquatic fad to the concurrent popularity of white drinks like white wines, vodka and light rums over red wines, whiskies, cognacs, and dark rums. For a while it seemed like manufacturers were intent on making drinks with no flavor whatsoever.

I like those white drinks just fine, but prefer something with more stuffing, the same way I like my fragrances.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

Same as above, mostly the reason is the synthetic-ness, especially in the drydown. In contrast to the drydowns of most classic non-aquatic scents that change and turns and reveals on and on for hours, most new fresh/aquatic scents give me a drydown that makes me feel like being wrapped up in skin tight plastic wrap, a good example of this would be polo blue. Composition-wise they are almost always gimmicky, some run of the mill fruity syrup top notes plus the plastic wrap-like aquatic note is always the formula.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I personally think that this aversion is often based upon the popularity of these fragrances on the mass market.

Many of today's releases are built around an aquatic, airy, light theme. The majority of the world believes in smelling 'clean' and has negative associations with body odor, dirt, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in theory, but in an effort to project a positive image, most people will play it safe and grab a scent that is accepted by society and that will not offend others. This is what makes it quite easy to guess what a random person who isn't specifically into fragrances is wearing. When you're familiar with many fragrances that have a very different theme, it's more appealing to wear something that's different and that makes you stand out or just suits your personal tastes better.

Also, certain aquatic scents tend to have a rather harsh or unnatural composition that emphasizes strongly on being 'fresh'. This can put people off, regardless of their knowledge of fragrances. My personal opinion is that humans were never meant to smell completely fresh 24/7, all year long, but that doesn't mean they should reek of body odor either. Something more complex and natural is just more interesting to me. I love my citruses and I love my light scents, but I also love a touch of wood, incense, something sweet or something green every now and then.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

After a shower I scent myself with a fragrance that I find unique, comforting and creative. After about 4 hours, when my natural odors have returned and mixed with the applied fragrance, I'm one happy animal. IMHO, Aquatics and natural body odors are in direct opposition to each other, they never combine to create a harmony - they just duke it out until my next shower.
On a limited basis, in a warm climate or in the summer, I can do a citrus fragrance, but that's as "fresh" as I like to be.

Last edited by Kevin Guyer; 31st March 2007 at 10:39 PM.
Reason: capriciousness!

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I think it comes down to market saturation and over use due to their current popularity.

On the supply side...When something is really popular, companies come out with a number of products to cash in on the popularity. Many of the products are rushed to market and other which should not have been brought out at all are brought out. In a lot of ways popularity leads to mediocrity.

On the customer side...Because it is a popular type of fragrance, it becomes the "safe" choice and people end up over using it and using it inappropriately.

The bottom line is that Aquatics can be really nice and are a useful part of a well rounded fragrance wardrobe. Think of Aquatic fragrances as being the Hawaiian shirts of your fragrance wardrobe.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

Fragrance is like music. If you really study the chemistry and psychology behind scent, then it's easy to see a quality perfume as literally like a musical symphony.

Aquatic fragrances generally smell synthetic and one dimensional, and in my opinion are the equivalent of teeny bopper music. It doesn't mean they're bad, but fragrance preference is a lot like musical preference, and the quality of scents preferred by a person can indicate a certain personality or mental/emotional maturity level.

For example, in aromatherapy circles and according to some perfumers, people that like deeper scents (woods, orientals, oud, patchouli) tend to be more comfortable with themselves, or more inclined or able to experience intimacy (emotionally and mentally). This is something that comes with age and maturity, usually (hopefully).

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I think acquatics are really interesting and fascinating. Halston Unbound, Gant Indigo, Lacroix's Bazaar, Creed's Erolfa, L'Eau D'Issey are excellent aquatics I own. Then there are the more marine type scents like Kenzo Homme, Nautica original, Nautilus Aqua, Nautilus Black Marlin (a marine oriental!) and Nautilus Blazer. Even the harsher Agua Brava - Sea Power and Aqua Quorum smell good after a while.

Citrus scents are nice during warm and hot weather, but who wants to wear citruses all the time when there are so many interesting aquatic and marine scents which are also perfect for the occasion? The much admired deeper, multi dimensional scents that are supposedly so much better than aquatics just don't cut it on a hot day.
Renato

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I'm curious to see if the aquatic haters dislike Creed's Erolfa. Remember, that not all aquatics are created equal. Kenzo PH, Bulgari Aqua and Dali Laguna are very special brews that evoke various bodies of water.

"I exist for myself, and for those to whom my unquenchable thirst for freedom gives everything, but also for everyone, since insofar as I am able to love - I love everyone. Of noble hearts, I am the noblest - and the most generous of those that yearn to give love in return. - I am a human being, I love death and I love life."

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I like the music analogy.

Aquatics are like the American Idol of perfumery. They are simple, pleasent but VERY forgetable.

I happen to like some aquatics (Creed Erolfa) but they are not my favorite.

The scent grows richer, he knows he must be nearHe finds a long passageway lit by chandelierEach step he takes, the perfumes change From familiar fragrance to flavours strangeA magnificent chamber meets his eye

Re: What is it about aquatics?

1) They smell very synthetic in most cases.
2) They tend to have shoddy compositions.
3) Everyone wears them.

There are some exceptions: for example, I like L'eau d'Issey PH, as it is well-crafted and not too synthetic. It's the AdGs and Kenneth Cole Blacks that make me sick.

I don't find aquatics "very synthetic in most cases." There aren't any fragrances out there that aren't predominantly synthetic by any definition of the word. It's a catch-all phrase for justifying a most subjective response and dressing it up as objective fact. Let me illustrate my claim: I could never wear Givenchy Pi. To me it's the most overt and chemically in your face fragrance out there, and yet I know a lot of people who like it and don't perceive in this way at all. In fact, I know some people seek out the EDP version of it. However, I don't feel at all compelled to tell anyone this by making a definitive statement good for all time that its a "synthetic" fragrance. In fact, because I don't like it, I don't feel at all compelled to talk about my dislike for it, which, when all is said and done, is entirely irrelevant to those who like it. Finally, I am not even interested in arguing that Givenchy Pi comes across as an overtly chemical fragrance, given that it doesn't for some people, which at least suggests to me that my response to might just involve a little subjectivity. I continued to be amazed by what people get out of fragrances, and I certainly don't set my subjective responses as a bench mark for everyone.

Back to aquatics: Acqua di Gio Pour Homme particularly and most aquatics generally tend to have very complex compositions. I wouldn't apply the word "shoddy" to them; it seems inappropriate not just in the case of aquatics, but in the case of fragrances in general. Even the most "common" smelling mass appeal fragrances are complex, artful, involved compositions. The word "shoddy" is a subjective term--like most terms we use to describe fragrances--that really has nothing to do with the objective facts of the chemistry of fragrances. I don't see it's applicability here at all.

I don't have any problem with everyone wearing aquatics since I don't wear fragrances for anyone but myself. I haven't ever based my individuality on my fragrance or on personalized number plates. Again, this is a personal, temperamental thing, but I certainly wouldn't claim that because I don't worry about what others wear or what I wear that everyone should follow suit. I, therefore, find it prescriptive to be told that one shouldn't really like something because it's popular. I am an accomplished cook, but I still eat a packet or two of the massively popular twenty cent packets of Ramen noodles when I get the inclination and enjoy that experience immensely. Is there something intrinsically wrong with that as many posts seem to unquestioningly suggest by applying the principle of popularity as an objective, sorting criterion to the valuing of fragrances?

Out of the 520 odd fragrances I own, Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme is one of a handful of personal favorites, and I wear it often, with great pleasure and to almost universal acclaim that cuts across gender, age, and cultural boundaries. These are not objective reasons to wear this fragrance; for me these reasons are a sufficient set of subjective reasons, but the most important component, as in all my choices of what I wear, is pleasure. If it gives me pleasure, I wear it, and Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme gives me a lot of pleasure, and, so, I wear it.
I am not passing off my personal subjective preferences in this post as objective facts, which is the way I see this thread heading. Renato's post has the virtue, at least, that in it he bases his like of aquatics on nothing more and nothing less than preference, variety, and versatility. Good enough for me. I can't object to that, but I do object to the general tendency to dress up subjective responses as objective facts. Although, I would argue, and have done so in close to 2,000 post that what I claim above about the nature of the chemistry of aquatics and fragrances in general are reasonably objective comments.

Finally, we tend to want to justify our dislike of a fragrance on grounds larger than the sufficient ground of not liking it with objective grounds that are supposedly sufficient in and of themselves, but those so-called objective grounds are not sufficient in and off themselves. For example, it's common knowledge that MFfan310 is a fan of Thierry Mugler's A*Men, and yet, relatively speaking, A*Men by any measure is a very "synthetic" fragrances with its prominent tar note and candy-floss sweetness, among other things. Also, I wouldn't claim "everyone" wears it, but it is a considerably popular a widely worn fragrance, and yet, the fragrance is one of his favorites. What's good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I just don't find aquatics very interesting, preferring stronger, richer, more complex scents which hold my interest. Yes, by the standards of this forum I qualify as a genuine old man

My typical response to an aquatic is that when I first encounter someone wearing one I think that sure smells nice. But just a few minutes later I'm already bored with it and wish I didn't have to smell it anymore. It's not that I find aquatics unpleasant, but rather boring.

I don't hate aquatics, and I even have a few in my wardrobe. But overall I'd usually prefer to wear something more interesting. Why wear something that bores me?

I liken the aquatic fad to the concurrent popularity of white drinks like white wines, vodka and light rums over red wines, whiskies, cognacs, and dark rums. For a while it seemed like manufacturers were intent on making drinks with no flavor whatsoever.

I like those white drinks just fine, but prefer something with more stuffing, the same way I like my fragrances.

Sums it up perfect for me. Couldn't agree more. I prefer woody/earthy/spicy complex fragrances. Most aquatics, with exceptions mentioned below, are linear and uninteresting for my personal taste. I have the same reaction to most air fresheners.

Since I started frequenting Basenotes, I discovered some aquatics I like and one or two that will become regulars in my wardrobe. Aquatics I like and wear include Creed MI and Erolfa, CBIHP Mr. Hulot's Holiday, Bond's Wall St., and Aqua de Bulgari.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

I think preconditioning of a person's expectations has something to do with it. At least it has some bearing on my own likes and dislikes, although I do try to be as open minded as possible.

I am in my 50s, and most of my experiences with scents are with the strong ones prevalent during the 80s (which seem quite normal to me), the citrusy ones, and the sweet, powdery ones. For most of my life this is what perfumes smelled like. These types of scents are what I find familiar and comforting. Caron's Pour un Homme and Guerlain's Habit Rouge are two of my top five all time favorites. Perhaps they are relatively simple and old fashioned, but I like the way they smell and I always feel good wearing them.

So when I smell new fragrances I always (whether I want to or not) tend to judge them based upon my lifetime experience with these types of fragrances. The aquatic fragrances seem so much different to me than what I'm used to. It's difficult to stop comparing and simply judge them on their own merits.

I think the younger generation has the opposite experience. They grew up with aquatics and other lighter, fresher, perhaps fruitier scents. These are what they are used to as scents, and function as references when they try other scents. I can see how they may be shocked by the heavier, more powdery scents, and can't come to grips with them.

I do think, at least based on which fragrances I smell on various people, that in general the aquatics are much preferred by the younger generation. I do smell aquatics on several of my similarly aged colleagues from time to time, but the vast majority of people I come in contact wearing aquatics are teenagers and people in their 20s.

Some of the likes/dislikes regarding aquatics, besides the popularity issue, must be due to our various life experiences with fragrances, what we expect them to smell like, and how we perceive them. Most of us Basenoters are more open minded and adventurous than most, investigating all types of fragrances, but I suspect that, somewhere deep in our subconsciousnesses, we are influenced by these experiences.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

Originally Posted by manicboy

I'm curious to see if the aquatic haters dislike Creed's Erolfa. Remember, that not all aquatics are created equal. Kenzo PH, Bulgari Aqua and Dali Laguna are very special brews that evoke various bodies of water.

While Laguna has a strong marine note (as do Michael Jordan Cologne, Aquaman and Escape) I wouldn't class it as an aquatic. To me it's an ambery fougere scent.
Renato

Re: What is it about aquatics?

Originally Posted by scentemental

I don't find aquatics "very synthetic in most cases." There aren't any fragrances out there that aren't predominantly synthetic by any definition of the word. It's a catch-all phrase for justifying a most subjective response and dressing it up as objective fact. Let me illustrate my claim: I could never wear Givenchy Pi. To me it's the most overt and chemically in your face fragrance out there, and yet I know a lot of people who like it and don't perceive in this way at all. In fact, I know some people seek out the EDP version of it. However, I don't feel at all compelled to tell anyone this by making a definitive statement good for all time that its a "synthetic" fragrance. In fact, because I don't like it, I don't feel at all compelled to talk about my dislike for it, which, when all is said and done, is entirely irrelevant to those who like it. Finally, I am not even interested in arguing that Givenchy Pi comes across as an overtly chemical fragrance, given that it doesn't for some people, which at least suggests to me that my response to might just involve a little subjectivity. I continued to be amazed by what people get out of fragrances, and I certainly don't set my subjective responses as a bench mark for everyone.

Back to aquatics: Acqua di Gio Pour Homme particularly and most aquatics generally tend to have very complex compositions. I wouldn't apply the word "shoddy" to them; it seems inappropriate not just in the case of aquatics, but in the case of fragrances in general. Even the most "common" smelling mass appeal fragrances are complex, artful, involved compositions. The word "shoddy" is a subjective term--like most terms we use to describe fragrances--that really has nothing to do with the objective facts of the chemistry of fragrances. I don't see it's applicability here at all.

I don't have any problem with everyone wearing aquatics since I don't wear fragrances for anyone but myself. I haven't ever based my individuality on my fragrance or on personalized number plates. Again, this is a personal, temperamental thing, but I certainly wouldn't claim that because I don't worry about what others wear or what I wear that everyone should follow suit. I, therefore, find it prescriptive to be told that one shouldn't really like something because it's popular. I am an accomplished cook, but I still eat a packet or two of the massively popular twenty cent packets of Ramen noodles when I get the inclination and enjoy that experience immensely. Is there something intrinsically wrong with that as many posts seem to unquestioningly suggest by applying the principle of popularity as an objective, sorting criterion to the valuing of fragrances?

Out of the 520 odd fragrances I own, Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme is one of a handful of personal favorites, and I wear it often, with great pleasure and to almost universal acclaim that cuts across gender, age, and cultural boundaries. These are not objective reasons to wear this fragrance; for me these reasons are a sufficient set of subjective reasons, but the most important component, as in all my choices of what I wear, is pleasure. If it gives me pleasure, I wear it, and Acqua dio Gio Pour Homme gives me a lot of pleasure, and, so, I wear it.
I am not passing off my personal subjective preferences in this post as objective facts, which is the way I see this thread heading. Renato's post has the virtue, at least, that in it he bases his like of aquatics on nothing more and nothing less than preference, variety, and versatility. Good enough for me. I can't object to that, but I do object to the general tendency to dress up subjective responses as objective facts. Although, I would argue, and have done so in close to 2,000 post that what I claim above about the nature of the chemistry of aquatics and fragrances in general are reasonably objective comments.

Finally, we tend to want to justify our dislike of a fragrance on grounds larger than the sufficient ground of not liking it with objective grounds that are supposedly sufficient in and of themselves, but those so-called objective grounds are not sufficient in and off themselves. For example, it's common knowledge that MFfan310 is a fan of Thierry Mugler's A*Men, and yet, relatively speaking, A*Men by any measure is a very "synthetic" fragrances with its prominent tar note and candy-floss sweetness, among other things. Also, I wouldn't claim "everyone" wears it, but it is a considerably popular a widely worn fragrance, and yet, the fragrance is one of his favorites. What's good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander.

scentemental

as always, you make a very well reasoned and thought out argument
so, just for the joy of debate:

"Even the most "common" smelling mass appeal fragrances are complex, artful, involved compositions. The word "shoddy" is a subjective term--like most terms we use to describe fragrances--that really has nothing to do with the objective facts of the chemistry of fragrances."

i believe that due to the massive price increase for essential oils in the early 90s, pressure for higher profit margins and much shorter product cycles, the objective quality of perfumes, on the average, declined noticeably, as cheaper components and lower concentrations came to be employed and noses had three months rather than a year or two to produce a new scent. significantly these event were coterminous with the rise of aquatics. while an aquatic per se may not be an inferior perfume, they acquired paradigmatic status at a time when perfume quality declined. ergo...

one might make the point that aquatics are part of the general trend towards fantasy perfumes which have made the classic categories of fougere, chypre etc. somewhat obsolete. this resulting once again from the pressure for marketing ever more scents and innovations and ever new available synthetics. i would forward the thesis, that until roughly the 1980s perfumes aimed at creating the impression of naturalness, with the help of synthetics of course. since then, the frame of reference has changed, perfumes smell increasingly like nothing comparable in nature, or a blend of such natural smells, therefore, subjectively, synthetic. the mass of aquatics and most other average designer scents is quasi intertextual, refering only to other perfumes, of which they are hastily concocted variations.

finally, as has been stated by others, part of the pleasure of consuming luxury products lies in the act of distinction, of being different- and, let's admit it - feeling superior to mainstream consumers. subculture, be it perfume freakdom or buffy the vampire fanclubs, is elitism under democratic conditions. it therefore makes psychological and sociological sense for a perfume lover to avoid aquatics. of course, if one actuall loves adg ot erolfa, that may take precedence.

personally i do not even like erolfa and MI, arguably two of the best made aquatics around, so, the issue is entirely academic for me personally

Re: What is it about aquatics?

it's funny that this topic should come up today cause someone today gave me a gift of Amouage Arcus NIB sealed and everything and it's quite nice and so wonderfully strong, yet. . . it being an "aquatic" and to boot "with melon" as I hear people rag on so many fragrances here for being. . .it's hard not to experience a little chagrin about it as though it's "too common"... but as it was a gift I am going to keep working with it! I also overapplied when I put it on today lol. when it was time to go to Qwendy (from MUA)'s birthday party this evening I showered and replaced it with my beloved Silver Cologne.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

to me, it's precisely the watery-melony-indefiniteness of MI, and a very "synthetic" impression, that makes it unpalatable. edwards classifies it as water-rich. do you consider it a fruity floral?

edit:though edwards sometimes confounds me. REL a dry wood?

In MI the oceanic accord isnt as obvious or strong as in Erolfa, Mare, and Bulgari Aqua (to name a few) - the latter I would definitely consider aquatic/marine fragrances, while MI is more of a fruity citrus with hints of salt. The comparison is more akin to fragrances which have a leather note (e.g., Antaeus) vs. full blown leather frags (e.g., REL, Knize Ten, et al).

Re: What is it about aquatics?

This is a very interesting thread to me as a new BN member and cologne user. I am in my 50's, married and work in a public sector office. In my work and social life, I don't come across a lot of men wearing cologne; virtually none of our friends do. So my recent interest & purchases are sparking some curiosity on my wife's part.

In the few weeks that I've been a member I've made some purchases from BN members and at the local TJ Maxx. Most of the bottle purchases have been what are described here as aquatics: Halston Unbound, Guess Man, Lanvin Oxygene (I'm guessing that this is considered and aquatic), and Bulgari Aqua. My reason for purchasing these bottles is that aquatics seems to be, for me right now, the scents that fit in best with my work and social life.

I've read through the threads here recommending scents appropriate for office wear. Based on those recommendations, I've purchased several decants including: Dunhill Edition, Santos de Cartier, Kiton, Guerlain Heritage, Brooks Bros. 1818, Tam Dao, and some others. I will try these out to see how I like them and how comfortable I am wearing them to work and socially.

I also bought a bottle of Azzaro Pour Homme b/c it's reviewed positively here and it was cheap at the TJ Maxx, but am not sure it's something I would be comfortable wearing anywhere.

I can easily see how aquatics are considered boring scents compared to other, much more dramatic scents, but they're working nicely for me right now.

This is a fascinating site and though I haven't posted much, I check in daily.

Re: What is it about aquatics?

Originally Posted by manicboy

I'm curious to see if the aquatic haters dislike Creed's Erolfa. Remember, that not all aquatics are created equal. Kenzo PH, Bulgari Aqua and Dali Laguna are very special brews that evoke various bodies of water.

Funny you should ask. Erolfa is the only aquatic I care to own, and Silver Mountain Water is the only other that appeals to me. Here's why:

Along with many others, I feel that the aquatics are overexposed, and that the proliferation of clumsy, non-descript, commercial aquatic scents has tainted the whole category with banality. But my general disinterest in aquatics runs deeper than this.

My real problem with most aquatics is that they're too "safe." The vast majority of them, regardless of their quality, are trying to be "pretty" in a bland, sanitary way. I am not pretty. I don't even want to feel pretty. I want some edge out of my fragrances.

Erolfa appeals to me because it is the least pretty of the aquatics I've tried. It has a harsh, briny quality that makes it far more interesting than all of those other clean, bland, run-of-the-mill aquatics. Now, Silver Mountain Water IS pretty, but it's also redeemed for me by an odd, metallic note that complicates its structure. Ironically, it's this same note, sometimes called "ink" or "inkjet toner," that turns many people off of SMW.